I still resent that everybody has gotten rich, to the point of taking away the fan experience from the working stiff. Sure...the players get to share the money that the owners make, but I'd rather see an NBA jersey sold for $14.99 so the working man's kid could buy one. Tickets also priced for less would be nice. Cheap eats would round out my satisfaction. I'm just not happy with the fact that these players make so darn much money. 50 million is enough money for several generations of a family to live on. Having teachers make $30,000 per, while NBA players get 5-20 million..........just doesn't sit well with me.

I see how pro sports work and the fact that athletes get paid when they transfer to the bigger markets. I just miss the old ways......When a team like the Minnesota Twins and Baltimore Orioles could win it all and not have to worry about losing players. Big and small markets is the norm now, but I don't have to like it.
That is why I previously suggested two NBA leagues. One for big salaries, and one for smaller markets.

My moral compass is outraged at the thought of teams throwing games to get a better draft choice in basketball. When I see coaches having to pamper star athletes these days...I really get turned off by all of this. I will not object when somebody suggests the throwing of games....because of what the NBA has become to me. Young people need a moral compass. They also need to be outraged when somebody with no demonstrated history of talent...demands a 50 million dollar contract. Unfortunately, in many communities, these people are idolized.........where's the compass for those kids?

I never liked the concept of tanking. Taynking is even more painful to watch.

Anyways, I think we're reading too much into this. Yes, we won 7 of 9 (ooh, sudden mental image of the Star Trek hottie). But, almost all of those were against bottom dwellers. We put up a good fight against San Antonio and beat the Celtics twice in a row, one of them on their home court. That's sweet no matter what else is going on with the team. My point is, the team should keep on trying to win, but I wouldn't worry about our lottery chances at this point because I don't think that it's gonna last as the opponents and the schedule gets tougher. I doubt Maxiell will be able to sustain his productivity and Gordon is overdue for a long lull in his shooting.

I would like to see if BK-Stuck-...-...-Monroe is really the core of the future. We would need to see them gel and try to win the rest of the way to be able to measure what they can accomplish and clearly identify what our real goal in the draft should be. We all talk about drafting a big stud that can protect the rim. But perhaps what we really need is a stud SF with a reliable mid-range game. Prince isn't gonna last forever and he's really not a great fit with the youngsters. The more we watch these guys in predictable and reliable rotations/game plans, the better we'll be able to assess an prioritize our needs.

Stuckey was a 15th pick also if you count that.
Then again, is luck or is Joe D an expert in drafts?

Click to expand...

well...draftin at top 5 position is remarkably risky- everyone, and I mean, absolutely everyone expects future allstars from top5. Allstar or nothing. Imagine, how many pieces have to fall at the right place for top 5 player to meet expectations?

Darko is the best example - talance was there but the rest of pices were not.

Therefore for Dumars to draft at ten something - nobody in expects super-hyper stars anymore and you may take less risky projects. Brandon Knight is a good example: not an allstar but a good solid player in the future (maybe).

Young people need a moral compass. They also need to be outraged when somebody with no demonstrated history of talent...demands a 50 million dollar contract. Unfortunately, in many communities, these people are idolized.........where's the compass for those kids?

Sorry G, but luck is half the winning. What about when the Mermaid lost a season and they got that power forward. It set them up for a decade. It's been 3 seasons of drafting around 7 and that should be good enough, not ! No way we should be sub .500.
But until we know how good these guys can be, we won't know what piece we still need. And after 3 seasons of grooming him for the "Star City". We can start over again.I say by hook or by crook.P.S. all wins over StarCities are priceless.

and old rosconi knows if i didn't care about the health and vitality of this pistons website, i wouldn't waste 36.363636 minutes of each and every day here.

Click to expand...

I know you care. I liked your point about honor and dishonor.

If people really don't see honor as an important value in their fan experience, then no amount of moralizing will change that. Some people really like to see a winner (notice all the regulars who disappeared when the team flopped) and I know for a fact, a few of the female fans (and Tater?) like the Pistons because the players are hot, not primarily because they have any talent or character.

To get people to agree with you, you have to appeal to their self-interest. The good argument (to a rational consequentialist like Ralphi) against tanking for a pick is that the Pistons will lose more in morale than they will gain in talent. Someone who wants to win at all costs can understand that calculation much better than claim to a higher abstract ideal.

Everyone has their biases. Your perspective contributes to the mix, just as the younger guys energy, idealism and uncomplicated approach (just tank) makes the entire forum deeper, more insightful by covering more angles. It's not an echo chamber like other forums.

There would be no dynamism here if everyone was a philosophical zenmaster. There would be a lot of stagnation. Heck, that's part of why I try not to post so much these days. To let other people lead with ideas and opinions rather than cram my POV into every discussion. My ideal is to have more discussion back and forth and that simply doesn't happen when people agree or when they attack one another (as we've seen on other forums).

Of all of the things I have done online in the last 10 years, this rates #1. Most of you are amazing people. We probably disagree on politics, ethics, morality and all sorts of other things, but you carry yourselves with a lot of dignity and you find ways to get along and be productive despite our differences. The health and vitality of this site are safe as long as we protect people when they post an opinion, irregardless of whether we agree with them or not.

If people really don't see honor as an important value in their fan experience, then no amount of moralizing will change that. Some people really like to see a winner (notice all the regulars who disappeared when the team flopped) and I know for a fact, a few of the female fans (and Tater?) like the Pistons because the players are hot, not primarily because they have any talent or character.

t.

Click to expand...

I am still here...

But I like to give constructive criticism and praise when needed and turn on a game hoping they will win ALL of them.

yo roscoe. i find it interesting that you think there is an argument for moral equivalency in cheating. and using ageism to make the argument on whether it is ethically right or wrong. i'm 55 not 155. neither do i think conversing on patience and real factual history a "bias". everyone in here that posts on a regular basis has my respect and i don't consider a singular confab some war between generations needing arbitration. near as i can tell no one was overly offended by any commentary on my part. your comment about not agreeing on much of anything does in fact seem "biased" and appears in the very least a political position. you're a bright guy and you know exactly what you're doing. as far as cramming a pov down anyone's throat, i think that i have personally posted three or four times on b-ball in the last year. - but - it's your house compadre.

Piston fans have had to endure a lot the past few years. "The Sale" spanning almost 2 seasons in which the GM was forbidden from making any trades. Then when the dam thing is finally sold the GM still does nothing. You can see how someone could get a little disgruntled.

But they are winning and some of the "assets" are doing better. And who knows, still not going to make the playoffs with this squad and its supposed to be a deep draft.

I know that the concept of tanking is the root of many disputes - the core of the problem is that the NBA somehow found a rather stupid concept that rewards losing that puts mediocre teams in a quite problematic position. By mediocre I mean these teams that are not at the bottom but don't make the playoffs/make the playoffs without any shot at winning the whole thing. It's not only in economics all about incentives - it's in life in general. That's why Ludwig von Mises called the probably most important economic treatise until today "human action" and not "economic action". And the NBA has set an incentive to either win big or lose big. The Pistons were losing big at the beginning of the season - and since this is a shortened season and as JJ, GMonroe and Knight seem to be a quite decent core to build upon, I was ok with it. Even more so, at a certain point I stated to think about the draft and how much a great lottery pick, maybe even accompanied with a decent free agent (since JoeD seems to have forgotten how to do a trade/rather sticks with his mediocre players he constantly overvalues) and the Pistons could be title aspirants sooner as everyone of us would expect. But these wins, as hard as it may sound, have done damage to the longer picture. They may be nice short-term - but on the long run, they do damage (I do not think that losing is causing more damage to the team morale than starting a fresh season with some new faces, particularly the mysterious 1st round lottery pick). Besides, winning reduces the chances of the happening of the overhaul this team and probably this organization needs to badly.
So, in a way, it comes down to the question of time preferential; do you prefer some nice wins now or do you prefer having a title contender in 2 or 3 years, while probably having to sustain one or two more seasons of losing, frustration and so on?

I understand why some people are flat out against tanking, or losing on purpose. I myself hate to lose. I don't often get much enjoyment participating in a sport or game if I don't win or at least perform to a high level. Winning for me is more about relief than satisfaction. I guess it's because I expect to win. When people find this out about me I understand why they may silently shake their head, or voice their disapproval, or feel sad for me. But I accept it and don't really want to change it.

But with regards to tanking, I just think there are better causes in life that you could choose to shake a moral stick at. Outside of a few professional sports leagues around the world, tanking just doesn't exist. I tried to think of other examples where losing on purpose gives you a better chance at gaining something in life, but I struggled to find one.

Marrying an ugly woman now does not give you a better chance of marrying a more attractive woman in your next marriage.
Performing your job poorly now does not increase your chances of getting a promotion or a better job in the future.

So I think to get up in arms about tanking, which only seems to exist in sports, is a little overblown.

As much as I hate losing, as a fan only of a professional sports team, it is easier for me to distance myself from the losing. Although I may pour time, energy, passion, money and spirit into the team, I am not actually one of those athletes out there playing the game. I have no direct control over how the team plays. If my team loses I may get upset, but it's not my fault and I don't hold myself accountable.

And to be honest, tanking doesn't occur nearly as often as people think it does. I pretty much guarantee there are no teams out there at this point of the season trying to lose, although we all enjoy speculating on it.
- New Orleans have just won 3 games in a row - all were games they were expected to lose. If they were tanking they easily could have found a way to lose and nobody would have said anything.
- Washington fired their coach in order to try to improve. They've won 2 of their last 4.
- Charlotte is owned by arguably the most competitive person in sports history. There's no way he would accept tanking.

The idea that players themselves would put in sub-standard performances for the good of the team is pretty much laughable to me. Players themselves do not tank. I could not conceive the idea of a player playing poorly on purpose so the team gets a higher draft pick. That would be loyalty to the infinite degree, and at the expense of their own perceived 'stock' around the league. Highly improbable.

So really, I think people are getting more upset about the idea of tanking, than the specific act of tanking. Not only that, the idea of players tanking. But the reality is, it just doesn't happen. It's only GM's, coaches and possibly owners that perform any level of tanking. They are the ones who put the players and lineups on the floor. They are the ones that control the direction of the team. And again, as they are not physically out there playing the game and looking at the long term picture, it's easier for them to distance themselves from losing. They aren't in the heat of the moment with personal pride on the line with some guy trash-talking in their face. Players certainly seem to take a 'losing reputation' to heart more than a GM would. If you want to blame anyone for tanking, it's definitely not the players.

When tanking does occur, it's generally in the last week or two of the season when there is nothing left to play for. This is about the point when someone provides an example of 'blue-collar Bob', plonking down his hard-earned cash for him and his family to go watch his team play, and see them not play up to standard. It's a heart-wrenching story! But in all seriousness, I empathise with Bob and understand the argument raised.

But what about teams who rest their players towards the end of the season? Is this not also a form of tanking? If we determine tanking to be a team not putting all its effort and resources into winning a particular game for some future benefit, then resting players is as much a form of tanking. Those teams are sacrificing a potential win now, because they see these future benefits to be more worthwhile than a win. ie. resting their players so they can produce at a higher level in a more important game in the future.

So why doesn't this generate as much debate and ire? I'm sure blue-collar Bob has every right to be as aggrieved by seeing his star players only playing half a game, or not at all when he has no specific injury or reason not to be out there.

If a team like New Orleans was seen to be actively tanking half way through a season there would be an absolute uproar, yet a team like the Spurs have been actively doing this all season. How many times has Popovic rested Duncan and others, or played them sparingly? Other teams have done it (Phoenix). Double-standard if you ask me.

Ralphi made a legitimate point....and I'm pleased that he is open to hearing opposing viewpoints. I think we can have some vigorous debate without the arbitration G-man so eloquentlty spoke of. It's Ok to let go Roscoe....you've got us to the point where these things won't go off the rails. You can trust us.

If we're going to discuss the merits of tanking, or whether it serves the team to be honorable with their play that's one thing. If you're going to attribute bad motives to me, that's poisoning the discussion. My motives, good or bad, are independent of the facts. If neither of us can make a case based on facts, it doesn't matter how well meaning or evil either of us are.

I believe your issue is that you think morals are absolutes, and they simply aren't. They may be absolutes for you, but everyone has a different morality because everyone has a different cognitive process. No two minds are the same. Those are facts.

Ralphi made a legitimate point....and I'm pleased that he is open to hearing opposing viewpoints. I think we can have some vigorous debate without the arbitration G-man so eloquentlty spoke of. It's Ok to let go Roscoe....you've got us to the point where these things won't go off the rails. You can trust us.

Click to expand...

Are you saying I can't post without it being arbitration, or that I shouldn't post at all because I am an arbitrator?

I ask because I was making a post as a veteran member of the forum, not as an admin. Do you think I should be allowed to express a preference when I post or disagree with a poster?

So, in a way, it comes down to the question of time preferential; do you prefer some nice wins now or do you prefer having a title contender in 2 or 3 years, while probably having to sustain one or two more seasons of losing, frustration and so on?

Click to expand...

You're right that it comes down to time preference and values. G-man made it clear he is a fan for the long haul, and his enjoyment of the team is not necessarily dependent on performance.

For someone else, they might be more interested in seeing high level winning basketball, even if they have to switch teams often.

The problem comes when people try to take these positions and factualize one over the other as the universally correct one. Not only is it impossible, it leads to a bunch of pointless squabbling about right and wrong, instead of the merits of the different approaches.

Darth Vader was a bad guy in the movies, but everyone thought his voice and outfit were totally kickass. Preferences are much more sophisticated than black and white, right and wrong.